User talk:Elockid/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Cybershore

Cybershore has returned and once again added unnecessary information into the text of history section. In fact, it is exactly the same one he has been adding over and over for the last year. It's quite odd to see this kind of behavior, but what I can not understand is that he does it regardless of what has been discussed before (Talk:Brazil#Expansion]]. Could you send him a message? Of even tell him to discuss first something that was settled instead of ignoring other editors? --Lecen (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Elockid,

Before you taking a position, I ask that you first look at the current discussion, and after, at the history of the aforementioned article/paragraph. If you do, you will notice that I edited on March 16, only and only (and I repeat to let it clear, only) after (of almost one month of continuous debate, in which):

1st I have exposed my arguments and no one has presented any arguments against it, including (and this is very significant) the fact that I have shown that Lecen has repeatedly lied (to be polite) about a bibliographic citation (of nr.83) , ie the author in the passage quoted from the book used as reference wrote one thing, and Lecen "freely" cites another (If you don't have the menionted book, this can be checked easily by using "Look Inside" tool in the Amazon Books' Website );

2nd no one has demonstrated, proved or even argued against in a historical or argumentative basis that what I wanted to edit was irrelevant, quite the contrary; observe the discussion (I again ask that you do so) and see that my argument has no counter- argument, even in my accusations regarding the use of double standards related to the disruptive edits

So, I repeat that it was only after all that, that I edited on March 16.

And see what curious: then neither Lecen, nor anyone else complained (in discussion) or reversed (the article).

And so it remained for Over a Whole Month!!!

Well, from there, until this week, I noted however, that the paragraph had been constantly edited (again I ask that you observe the history of that article), in a way that it seemed to me, the meaning was getting half cloudy, to put it mildly, as you can see here (see 2.3 Early Republic, 1st paragraph). And along this month, as you can see on the history of the article, nobody really cared to complain, or edit or revert... So, I fixed it on April 21, having another person later corrected a flaw in the input of a reference.

And “suddenly” again, appears the obsessed Lecen and made a disruptive revertion; one more time, more than a month later!!! backing to his "preferred" one, without debate, and more serious: with that same lie in the reference cited above.

Now, What you have to tell us about it, Dear administrator?

And more, what you'll do about it?

Yes, because if you ignore all the facts I mentioned; instead to mediate impartially, you will have friendly and passionately choosen a side (what is, let's face it, something nothing impartial)...

I'm waiting an prompt but impartial and objective reply,

And not a threat of block for someone who has not avoid the debate, and have pointed out flaws (by the way, some very serious)

Sincerely, Cybershore (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, not trying to be mean in all but you drove all, well most of the other editors away because you were unwilling to cooperate with them and basically whittled down their patience. Do you know how disruptive that is? By the way it seems, any kind of debate you're going to ignore based on your second statement. Elockid ^(Talk) 22:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but ask for counter-argument specifically related on what is being discussed, is to ignore the debate???

Sorry again, but it seems that is quite the contrary: not to argue with, use personal insults and "freely" create quote books, is not only ignore the debate, but also the ethics and the readers' intelligence.

I also repeat here what I wrote about cooperation there: " ...next time when a new edit happen, don't face it as matter of personal honor, victory or defeat. But enhance it, if you not agree, discuss it in respectful and objective basis, not being wedded to certain views of the world. "(wrote in 01:49, 8 March 2011) Cybershore (talk) 02:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Alright so I decided to fully protect the page until further notice. Perhaps we can get a discussion rolling and not play the discuss then revert game. Elockid ^(Talk) 23:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

As I already wrote on the discussion page: " I have no fear, shame or hesitation in my mind change if / when the facts Presented Convince me. " (01:49, 8 March 2011). Unfortunately, as far now, this doesn't seem to be the case of who has repeatedly ignored the debate and made ​​disruptive reversals, among other things already reported Cybershore (talk) 02:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring debate? Saying other people don't have "good enough" counterarguments is pretty much ignoring to me. With regards to the ignoring debate, please read what I wrote previously. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, well, well, show me where I said "not good enough arguments", where?

Sad to see that a people who should be impartial not even read what I wrote previously here and in the related discussion page;

And worst, now are putting (typing) words in mouth (hand). Not a good thing for an administrator...

But let's make easy your job and resume the question:

The "dispute" are over 2 points in the 1st paragraph about the summary of the 1st republican period of Brazilian history:

I arguered with arguments and quotations (not spurious ones) why the only 2 events that stand out in Brazilian foreign policy and internally - the entire set of rebellions, civillian and military (ie, not just military ones) between the 1890s and 1920s (and not just those that occurred in the 1920s) should be (briefly) mentioned in its completeness or should have found a way not to favor / decontextualize an event in favor of another.

First, my edits were simply reversed, without justification and with offenses (See the Revision history Page of the article, from January)

2nd, after failing both to itimidate me with an block and in counter-argue, Lecen fled from debate after I exposed not only his double standards behavior, but also and mainly his use of the spurious quotation (See quote nr. 83 and Check the original, page 403, as already suggested). By the way, curious that You, who so eagerly have question me, has not uttered a syllable in relation to this serious issue...

Anyway, as I wrote there, I believe that Wikipedia it's about an tinkering process, not fighting between dogmatic versions, specially those flawed or incomplete. No need to consider this process of constant changing as "personal war". But for that to happen, editors' sense of ownership in relation to an article should be discouraged, so that edits can be enhanced and fitted when appropriate, and not locked/closed (under the euphemism of "protected")... Cybershore (talk) 03:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

From my talk page And finally, it's sad that still without showing objective arguments against, you preferred to slip into the easy path of subjectiveness about spelling accusing me to use "weasel words", criticizing but without improving - And worst: as if your own phrase in the same section referring to the 1920s years, did not use the same style... a clear example of selfinterest use of double standards Cybershore (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC) OR

from the Brazil talk page: 1) Again, nobody has presented any counter-argument, limiting to just stick to personal views of what it should be considered important or not, and worse, getting into the highly relative field of spelling as easy justification for scape of debate;
2) In relation to the supposed consensus, well ... No one should fear of facing groups, particularly when members of a group flatly refuse to counter-argue or deliberately choose going through the easy path of deleting, instead of improve what they criticize (spelling). Cybershore (talk) 03:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

That's basically saying your arguments are not good enough even though arguments are present in the talk page. Not directly saying it, but it's basically what the meaning is. You're right that Wikipedia is not about fighting at all nor edit warring. But it's mostly about consensus building. Consensus during disputes is the main way to "enhance" an article. Elockid ^(Talk) 16:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

That's your inference about and sad again seeing that you selectively inferred, not impartially, I feel double standard here again, for example:

when you says " even though arguments are present in the talk page ", you selectively "forget" that: 1st I responded to these arguments, and then and only then and from this point, there were no more counter-arguments presented that refute my points of view presented above.

Sure, even related to these 1st initial arguments against my case, if I behave inferring freely, I might have classified them as assertions in the "Because I said so" category.

But no. I responded them, one by one. Now, I also see that you still having nothing to say about spurious quotations Cybershore (talk) 17:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you seem to be "selectively forgetting" about the "exhaustion" part of the discussion. I don't know how you keep missing the point. People have a limit on their patience, you exhausted theirs. I cannot access the source for these quotations. Elockid ^(Talk) 00:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but the only limit "exhausted" seems to be the arguments, Not patience.

Since those, who really have arguments never lose patience, temper or avoid the debate calling on others,

or trying to disqualify the counterparty using insults, or attempting to divert the focus of the topic discussed...

Really? Couldn't You access the source of quotations? That thing, eh!

Let me show you: you have at least 3 options, in the case you haven't the book:

a) Go to Amazon Books Website;

b) In the search box, type the name of the Author "Barman, Roderick J." or the book (used as reference for the spurious quotation nr.83) "Citizen Emperor";

c) Click in the "Look Inside" Tool;

d) In the box "Search inside this book", type one word of the quotation, for example "incompetence"...

e) Go to the last result of the search and "Voilà!" dear administrator, you'll be there: on the page 403 of the book, go to the beginning of the last paragraph and you'll see the original quote that was infamously "distorted", "adapted", "interpreted freely" (use the term of your preference) by our obsessed, untempered, "impatient" friend...

2)

Go to Google Books and repeat the procedure above. It will be work better and fast than in Amazon

3)

Go to an real Bookstore, pick up the book and go to page 403... Cybershore (talk) 05:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

@To your first statement. That is your inference. Right now, based on what other people have written, you've exhausted their patience. Note this was not just Lecen. For example, "Cybershore, it's getting harder and harder to assume good faith when it comes to your edits to this article" (from Underlying lk)

@To your second statement. Absolutely wrong. One can play wheel of arguments and repeat the same arguments over and over again. If you've ever engaged yourself in politics, you'll find that politicians, even ones with absolutely no "real" arguments play wheel of arguments in order for a bill or law that expires to pass the deadline for renewal or just make it fade out. Even the people you have "real" arguments are bound to get annoyed, making them lose their patience. In your situation however, it's when a person has been repeatedly argued with but is unwilling to agree. There's a term that people would call this. It's stubbornness. That's what makes people lose patience. For example, let's take the World being flat vs. round. Group A says the world is round and have arguments to support their idea. Group B says the world is flat and has also arguments. Despite arguments from Group A, Group B repeatedly "counters" as they believe with new arguments. The cycle keeps repeating until Group B appears to come up on top by having Group A just stop.

Lol. As you can tell, I haven't been very active. Technical difficulties on my part. But I should be good for now. Also, that isn't a book you can find at my local bookstore. By nr. 83, do you mean line 83? Elockid ^(Talk) 12:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, well, well, curious that in the meanwhile you've been showing very quickly in order to respond Lecen down there

And after almost one month later, alleging "technical difficulties" you simply continue to ignore the central issue: incredible that it took you that long to selectively mining a portion of the discussion "forgeting" my reply and the lack of counter-arguments coming from the other party, because

Again, I repeat: those, who really have arguments never lose patience, temper or avoid the debate calling on others, trying to disqualify the counterparty using insults, accusing others of their own practice

or attempting to divert the focus of the topic discussed...

So, 1 more time ...I have no fear, shame or hesitation in my mind change if / when the facts Presented Convince me. " (01:49, 8 March 2011). Unfortunately, as far now, this doesn't seem to be the case of who has repeatedly ignored the debate and made ​​disruptive reversals, among other things already reported (02:24, 23 April 2011)

I believe that Wikipedia it's about an tinkering process, not fighting between dogmatic versions, specially those flawed or incomplete. No need to consider this process of constant changing as "personal war". But for that to happen, editors' sense of ownership in relation to an article should be discouraged, so that edits can be enhanced and fitted when appropriate, and not locked/closed (under the euphemism of "protected")... (03:32, 3 May 2011)

Thus, sorry but nor I, neither anybody with dignity can passively accept "arguments" Like "Because I said so, it is so!" "Take it or leave it".

I was very clear about the bibliographic spurious reference, the nr. 83, 3rd line in the "Early Republic" section.

Now, IF in order to Not check this, leaving behind any pretense of impartiality that you perhaps had, you prefer to bypass the step by step via Google books or amazon books suggested above, feeling more comfortable grinning nervously, claiming not to find the physical book, well... it is an ethical problem concerning to your conscience, not to my... Cybershore (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

1) Please get your facts straight. I have responded to your statements promptly in March and April. I gave both you and Lecen an equal prompt response on May 2nd and May 7th, respectively. Each about half a day apart.

2) You didn't answer my question. Perhaps you yourself have selectively been reading? I am not going to reinstate it. Your question about the spurious quotation can't be answered until then.

3) You have not counter-argued my statement with regards to exhausting others' patience nor the those of really have arguments idea. But instead, repeated your previous statements. Looks like wheel of arguments to me.

This is the central issue. I repeat this is the central issue not whatever you're saying the central issue is. The main issue is not the content. I am just going to be blunt since you seem to be missing the whole point ever since the beginning of the argument in March. Your thoughts and actions are of the minority even if we disregard the content issue. Even in the real world, they are of the minority. You are trying to impose minority views over majority views. You may believe that they are right but there is an even greater amount of people who think they are wrong. We have a little section that you might be interested. Check out Wikipedia:Tendentious editing.

You don't truly win debates by being the last person standing. No matter how many arguments you counter, that does not mean you've won the debate. You win debates by getting support from people. Well, high school and college debates are different, but in the real world debates you win through persuasion. The dispute was initially between you and Lecen. How do suppose Lecen got two more supporters (MBelgrano and Underlinglk) while you received none on the issue? Well, perhaps he was the one with "real" arguments? Elockid ^(Talk) 21:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Well,

1)My clear indications of how to locate the spurious reference in question are from the 08th of May, yours non-response or refusal, if you will, is dated on May 27... 20 days, almost one month...

2)about this spurious Quote/citation, on the article's talk page and here, (again) I pointed out:

1st its number on the article are 83, see Early Republic section, 3rd line and compare what is write there with the original Barman's book "Citizen Emperor" (used for citation), page 403.

2nd I initially thought it was just a faulty Quote, perhaps the result of a distracted reading by a hurried editor. But later, when the actual quote was systematically overlapped by simple revertions (disruptive and tendentious edits), I had no doubt of its pure and plain bad faith.

3)Related to consider a debate on Wikipedia as something to "win"or "lose" game, I think it unnecessary to have to re-paste my position about it, but obviously if it will prolonged and the same key will played repeatedly (as well as about my arguments and others things)... why not?

I remind you also that in the "Real World" (which the network environment are part, just to remember) when the question is to "win" hearts and minds, are many many examples, historical and present, to demonstrate that no dictator or group manages to maintain or impose themselves without the support or apathy of an majority.

Which also leads to remember that there are also numerous examples, from the "flat earth theory" to racism as well as medical practices that fell into disrepute, that were justified on pseudoscience, and even after being confronted by evidence still had the support of the majority for a long time ...an "wrong" minority has steadily and patiently grown to become a majority.

And I'm talking about really huge crowds, generations' beliefs, not just 3, 4 (particularly one, since the silence of others may also mean, among other things, abstention) guys' stubbornness in maintaining at any cost (as the trying to taking advantage of double standards, disruptive/tendentions editions, intimidation, offenses etc), a extensive but incomplete version for a section of an encyclopedia article, including a spurious quote, rather than let the things roll. Cybershore (talk) 04:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

1) Obviously they were not clear. I asked you a simple question regarding it, of which you still have never directly answered. Since you seem to be so keen into not selectively reading, I will not restate the question. Since I am not an expert on Brazilian history you need to explain in this page why it spurious. You have been stating it's faulty throughout the conversation but haven't provided any real reason to why it's faulty. If you also see the history on my talk page, I haven't responded to any threads for quite awhile. Does that make you more suspicious? Or are you "selectively" choosing an instance to make a claim.

2) See above

3) Once again, you have not presented anything or counter to counter argue all my statements. Again, you have chosen which to "selectively" argue or read. You still did not fully answer/respond/counter to number 3. Please do so. Please do note that the minority situations you gave, gave compelling evidence. If you have compelling evidence, then present them to MBelgrano and Underlying lk. Those examples you gave are during a time where people were more rigid and conservative so they were more unwilling to accept new ideas from the minority. However, we live in a more liberal world where ideas and actions are not simply rejected based on something like religion. I can give you a lot more numerous examples where even in today's more liberal world where they're either never going to be accepted or hardly have a chance of ever going to be accepted. I'll give you a hint. Doomsday (religious such as a rapture) or Cults.

If you don't like the processes around here then A) I recommend that you get them amended, if you do not know the place, then I may assist you or B) Abide by them or you will be sanctioned. If you're not going to bother in reading up on policy and cooperating and getting consensus with other editors, I don't mean just Lecen, I mean both MBelgrano and Underlying lk, then there is no point in pursuing this discussion any further. Elockid ^(Talk) 05:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I see,

Look, if an author writes something in a certain portion of a given book, and another person writes a different one, quoting his/her different phrase as if this was the original phrase contained in the book which he/she uses as a reference, changing the meaning of the original one, this is an spurious quote, mister.

The way you say, the regulation says okay if in a given article, a majority consensus, no matter how many people, seems to agree that doomsday or rapture, as described in some sects, should be interpreted literally...

But if you mean that there is no point in keep discussion with the bureaucracy here, you're right;

For now, going back to continue the debate in the clos... "protected" article, on its Talking page Cybershore (talk) 06:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

You've basically just defined what a spurious quotation is which I already knew what it was. What is the background information that makes it spurious? How was the meaning changed? This is my question.

Consensus is what we go by here. The links that Bwilkins (talk · contribs) gave to you is a good place to go if you haven't already. If you haven't already, I recommend that you go there again. This is what the other editors have been asking you to get. Although consensus is what we go around here, the community here at Wikipedia isn't stupid. I believe the community is intelligent enough to decipher the meaning of the descriptions of doomsday. Don't you? In order to gain consensus, people present arguments. The arguments that are the most compelling gains the most support. These days are different because people have opened up more and have given a chance towards new ideas. If your arguments were really "real" and compelling, then you should have gained the necessary support you should have. Perhaps instead of stating that others' are not using "real" arguments, you should reflect over yourself. Rather, ask yourself question, how come my arguments are not gaining any support?

Honestly, if your arguments are like "That's your inference" (I used it too, but I was making a point with it. I can elaborate on this if you wish) or "those, who really have arguments never lose patience, temper or avoid the debate calling on others, trying to disqualify the counterparty using insults, accusing others of their own practice" then you need to redefine what it means to have a "real" argument because these were IMHO pretty weak counterarguments. These arguments are not compelling. As you have described yourself in the minority, the that's what you think argument pretty much completely lessens it's effectiveness and has negative implications. Restating arguments as you did with the losing patience argument does not add to the conversation especially when there is no further counterargument after that.

If you're more curious to why I said, "If you're not going to bother in reading up on policy and cooperating and getting consensus with other editors, I don't mean just Lecen, I mean both MBelgrano and Underlying lk, then there is no point in pursuing this discussion any further", here's the reason. If you can't help me help you, then there is no point in continuing discussion because you will undoubtedly get blocked for not abiding by policy anyways. You can't just break rules to further your own agenda. Throughout the whole situation, here's what you've been basically saying. Okay guys, instead of just destroying the improvement, improve the improvement I've made. So my question is, why force everyone to improve your edit while they disagree with it? You can't just force people to like whatever you're doing when they don't like it. Making them improve on something they don't like is a big no no. It's human nature to seek better options. As I stated previously, I believe the editors in the community are intelligent enough to decipher what's right and wrong or what's better and what's worse. Elockid ^(Talk) 11:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

"What is the background information that makes it spurious? How was the meaning changed? This is my question."

Okay,

To explain why I believe in the spuriousness of the quote in question, I restart pasting the two quotations:

The original found in the book: "the naval revolt of september 1893 opened a prolonged cycle of civil war, financial disaster and government incompetence.",

While the edit in the "Early Republic" section of Brazil's article says "In 1894 the republican civilians rose to power, opening a prolonged cycle of civil war, financial disaster, and government incompetence". The citations are different.

Some may argue that since the quotation marks are located at the point where the phrases are identical "a prolonged cycle of civil war, financial disaster and government incompetence", there wouldn't be any problem... technically ...But, technicalities apart, the question is the meaning of the whole sentences are completely different:

One quotation says that in certain historical moment, a military revolt sparked a cycle of instability,

while another, using the first one in a partial way as reference (to give a veneer of respectability), states that the rise to power of the civilians, a year later, would have been responsible for the beginning of the overall instability.

Thus, spurious quotation aside, is also a spurious correlation. Why not let try to fix?

Some may argue that even the original statement of the book, that blames the naval revolt of 1893 for having alone, triggered an whole cycle of instability is questionable, since the instability in financial area eg had already been triggered in 1891 by the "encilhamento" crisis, which was the first big crash of the Brazilian financial market.

But I don't believe that an error on another error can make a right. Especially, if this accumulation of imprecisions is reflected also in the Wikipedia in Portuguese, where (I'll also play this discussion, since there) this same flaw occurs.

"It's human nature to seek better options. ...the community are intelligent enough to decipher what's right and wrong or what's better and what's worse."

Yeah, Absolutely! Especially if this community isn't closed/"protected" to/from itself, and/or the improvements don't become hindered by disruptive/tendencious edits of 1 same person... Cybershore (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Did the naval revolt lead into the Republican civilians into power or is there really dispute within Brazilian scholars that led into instability?

Perhaps you could also try Wikipedia:WikiProject Brazil to get more opinions since I'm not an expert. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Elockid,

about it there is no disput, at least in Brazil among Brazilian scholars...

Since the constitution of the then newly proclaimed Republic stated that the elections for president would be by direct vote but only after a first term, since the transitional provisions of that Constitution provided indirect election via an the electoral college of elected parliament for the 1st government, elected and installed in 1891.

Thus, were already provided in that constitution, both elections and the inauguration of the 2nd republican government, for 1894, much before 1893's events.

Furthermore, in Brazil even among monarchists and advocates of the military regimes agree that when the first civilian elected in that republican period took office in the late of 1894, both financial and political, causes as the majors consequences of 1891' Crash as the 1893's naval revolt (whose developments occured basically in the south of the country), were already in motion far away in time, before he be elected, and pretty before he takes office.

So there is no sense in automatically link the civilians' taking office with the opening of "the prolonged cycle of civil war, financial disaster, and government incompetence", that was already there. And (not only but also And) mainly when the author, used as reference (right or wrong about his own analysis - is not my point here) did not wrote it.

Now, Again, I´m no nuts to wanna, neither be the "right guy" nor do the "ultimate" version of the "Early Republic" section, in "Brazil" article.

I remind one more time that: my edit of this section of March 16 (not a Great edit, not "the best edit", not a "sacred wrote in the stone" edit, just one more among many others to be constantly improved) stood there over whole month with nobody complaining (in discussion) or reversing.

Only when I noted that the paragraph had been constantly edited (again I ask that you observe the history of that article), in a way that the meaning was getting half cloudy, as you can see here (see 2.3 Early Republic, 1st paragraph), and along this month (as you can see on the history of the article), as nobody really cared to complain or edit about it, I fixed it (without an reversion) on April 21, having another person later corrected a flaw in the input of a reference;

And... was only then that this stuff started again, with a disruptive revertion, one more time, more than a month later!!! Backing to "sacred" one, with the identical spuriousness about the reference and on correlation both cited above.

But in reality, I must thank that this is happening, otherwise, I guess such details, among others, wouldn't be disclosed here prior to new edits Cybershore (talk) 06:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Quite interesting. Thanks for the explanation. I am planning to unprotect the article in a week. I will request that the other editors continue the discussion. Would you be willing to participate in the discussion? Elockid ^(Talk) 14:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, definitely! Cybershore (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Extreme incivility by Special:Contributions/76.67.18.192

Hey, this IP has been extremely uncivil on Talk:South Asia#Concerning this edit (Indian Subcontinent). They have have been warned twice about violating civility rules, yet they continue. Can disciplinary actions be taken against this IP. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like they've stopped for now. Will monitor. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Your Australian States and Territories by Human Development Index contributions

Hi Elockid. Just wondering if you were aware that a territory had been left off the list - and whether that reflects the lack of data, or just an oversight. I'm thinking of the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) - the Federal seat of Government.

Regards,

Ozeye (Brett)

Not sure at the moment. Could be lack of data. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Arguable cause for a block?

Elockid -- Please review my diffs at User talk:Chafis -- here and here. Also, please consider adding G8 and G-20 major economies to your watchlist.

As you know, Chafis was part of the problem which led to BRICS being locked,

It appears that a similar pattern of disruptive edits is replicated in two corollary articles. The serial reverts which Chafis makes are problematic because (a) they are accompanied by NO edit summaries; and (b) there is NO willingness to engage in talk page discussion -- even when it has been explicitly invited. --Tenmei (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Blocked 1 month. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

White Hispanic and Latino Americans

Hi, Elockid.

I'm requesting semi-protection for that article because the indefinitely blocked (and abusive) user M5891 shows up periodically to restore an old version using dynamic IPs (White Hispanic and Latino Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)). Real, lasting changes have been very rare and it's been a stable article for a couple of years. Any serious IP or new editor who may come along can propose changes on the talk page in advance. Please take a look. Thanks. SamEV (talk) 02:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Protected. Elockid ^(Talk) 00:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

OK. But let me clarify. Those anon edits are identical to edits that M5891 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) used to insist on. The anon has never denied being M5891. So if he's a sockpuppet, I don't think it's an edit war, since he shouldn't be editing.

What I was really asking for was a long-term semi-protection. I realize that permanent semi- or full protection isn't done, but I was hoping for something like six months.

Nevertheless, thank you, Elockid. SamEV (talk) 21:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll continue to monitor. But in case I can't, try RfPP. Elockid ^(Talk) 12:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

All right. Thank you. SamEV (talk) 02:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You should check this out

Elockid, I'd like to suggest taking a look at Talk:Empire of Brazil#Citations. Notice what the IP 187.38.247.127 wrote:

Apparently this editor, Lecen, has abused of spurious quotations, as reported on the discussion page of Brazil, as well as quotes taken out of context.

It is better to check, one by one, all his quotes to see whether they fit into the complaint against him in the section Early Republic of the Brazil's article (citation no. 83). Because, if a person commits an ethical slip, will tend to repeat it...

I might be terribly mistaken and I wouldn't want to accuse someone of sockpuppetry, but that's one weird and suspicious message to me. I didn't notice at first that this user could have been Cybershore (going after me in another article!) and even responded with some citations. He answered back:

Well, all what you did was to paste more quotations ...out of context (Assuming the veracity and integrity of them, unlike the infamous and "freely adapted" nr. 83 mentioned above). Of course you could also resort to the pasting of more quotations, for example, of the press, Brazilian government and selected reports at that time accusing the rebels of Canudos, as restorative monarchists, which does not mean, as we know, that they were. But even you, may know now that at this point, it wouldn't deceive anyone.

No, I'm not Cybershore, but man, seems that he/she left you a little paranoid and traumatized, and also seems that your lack of "mood" for debate lies simply on your lack of arguments, as Cybershore pointed out, not to say scruples as I would add...

Perhaps this is the classic case of an "evil twin"? You might wonder now why other editors simply gave up discussing with him. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps. The language seems similar. But could also be meatpuppetry. Definitely worth to keep an eye out. Elockid ^(Talk) 00:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:SPU

Hi. I would like to inform you that the banned sock master User:Poladmoscow is still making controversial POV edits based on self-published sources, this time under a new WP:SPU, User:Wever11. Since, you seem familiar with User:Poladmoscow's previously banned WP:SPU User:Deadspoke, I just wanted to let you know. All the best!84.23.140.55 (talk) 12:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, difficulties on my part. Looks like they're already block. Please continue reporting. Thanks. Elockid ^(Talk) 12:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Change sayings on Editions list

Hi Elockid, i have a little problem on the article "Italy", that gonna take only a few minutes. I'm on a discussion in the article, with other user, that is not a Moderator, accusing me of vandalism. What i ask is to change on Revision history of Italy the sayings 06:47, 14 May 2011 Conte di Cavour (talk | contribs) (152,597 bytes) (suspected vandalism by GustoBLSJP) (undo) to a neutral 06:47, 14 May 2011 Conte di Cavour (talk | contribs) (152,597 bytes) Reverted (undo). Just this. You don't have to mediate the discussion.

GustoBLSJP (talk) 00:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

This user didn't accept my changes, even with a talk on "Discussion" and my insertion of open/clear sources on the edits. However, the user labeled my edits as vandalism. I thank you, if you resolve the problem i stated before.

GustoBLSJP (talk) 03:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The User:Conte di Cavour insists to label me as "vandal", stating the term on the history of edits and Talk:Italy, claims that his contributions on "Italy" are better, because he is italian and i'm brazilian, even with my observance of the rules (Neutral POV/Balance on controversial subjects/Inserts of clear and open sources and ideas on "Talk" and the edits).

GustoBLSJP (talk) 14:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Now, User:Conte di Cavour continues to attack me directly, on his Talk page, with several personal offenses.

GustoBLSJP (talk) 01:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Elockid. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Elockid, the problem is solved. I ask you, please, to delete this Talk. Thank you.

GustoBLSJP (talk) 01:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Slightly abusive ban for small edit

Hello there, my name is HaloScott3. Recently you banned my ip (school laptop) until 2012 for small edit I made. I changed some wording in the crowbar article about the use of 'franchise'. This is the first edit I have ever made into a wiki article and when I saw it was reverted as so called "vandalism" I was disapointed. Franchise only applies to intellectual property which is given sold to private owners for commercial use. Half-Life is not a franchise as Valve Software distributes it for entertainment purposes and a user is also given the right to modify the source code in any way provided the Valve logo apears at the start. I do believe my contribution was correct but I am open to discussion. Thank You.

I am currently writing from my home computer which has not been banned yet (and I would thank you not to!)

~=_Haloscott3_=~

Hi Haloscott3 and welcome to Wikipedia. Could you please tell me the IP of the school you are editing from? I've blocked quite a number of schools and it would help to know which one it is exactly. If you don't feel like disclosing that information publicly, please contact me privately through email. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

USER Etamn

Etamn is a sockpuppet of banned chauvinist antisemite romanian user Iaaasi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Iaaasi

Thank you for your assistance. I have blocked Etamn (talk · contribs) as a sock Iaaasi and 84.0.78.4 (talk · contribs) as an IP sockpuppet of Stubes99. Elockid ^(Talk) 11:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Tibet on South Asia

Quigley seems to want to start a discussion on the inclusion of Tibet in South Asia. Please chime in if you can. You are being informed of this as you took part in similar discussions on Talk:South Asia in the past. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 08:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Clever sockers

I can't help but admit to being slightly impressed by the edit summary here. Pity it's a complete fabrication, got to love it when just created users come in to back each other up though. Not suspicious at all. Transport1991 was another recent editor going straight to templates. None of these socks seem to be lasting though. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Lol. I gave those socks a one-way ticket to Blockedville. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

One use socks: Hwetzelh, Karinf, Lnimg, Bethbel, Zamal0608. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. All blocked. Are you active at Commons/know where to report sockpuppets? There's one there that's changing images. Elockid ^(Talk) 15:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The Comtesse has their own category of socks, however they don't have their own archived sock cases yet, as most have gone through Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Green, White and Gold. There is the standard Commons:Requests for checkuser to use. Which maps are they changing? I don't have them watchlisted apparently. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

See Geogir. The first edits make it a dead a giveaway. Thanks for the info. I'll file a request for CU. Elockid ^(Talk) 16:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I created a case here. Elockid ^(Talk) 17:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction in content between Filipino American & Indian American articles

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Filipino American#June 2011. This is the second event regarding similar content. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

Hello, Elockid. You have new messages at Talk:Filipino American#June 2011.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Another administrator has joined the conversation, please see the most recent events regarding this discussion. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to respond by this evening. Elockid ^(Talk) 16:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

gdp per capita lsit

thanks for undoing my latest revision about list of countries by gdp per papita ppp

I was going to undo it too but there are some inconsistincies with the data.

world bank data is available at this site ---> http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNP.PCAP.PP.CD?order=wbapi_data_value_2009+wbapi_data_value+wbapi_data_value-last&sort=desc

and the numbers are inconsistent

regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapatta (talk • contribs)

Thank you for concern. The link you posted is based on GNI. The article you edited is based on GDP. This is probably the reason why there are discrepancies. Elockid ^(Talk) 21:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

sorry wrong link

this one I mean: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.PP.CD?order=wbapi_data_value_2009+wbapi_data_value+wbapi_data_value-last&sort=desc

there are still inconsistincies such as macao's rank etc.

regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapatta (talk • contribs)

Yes, it does seem that some of the countries don't match. Most probably due to a later update from the World Bank. You're welcome to change the data to match the source. Otherwise, I'll change the data. Elockid ^(Talk) 22:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I would. But I have to sleep for now. Im gonna edit the whole list 20 hours later and you will check the list for possible errors.

cooperation?

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapatta (talk • contribs)

Alrighty then. Elockid ^(Talk) 22:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

On Italy...

Hi Elockid. In the article Italy, User:Conte di Cavour made some 20 direct edits, shuffling large pieces of text between sections, and did not make a statement on Talk:Italy.

Revision history of Italy

CrimsonSabbath (talk) 22:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not required to make a statement in the talk page when making edits, even large ones except during disputes. But if you make large, controversial edits, it's recommended that you do. If you have a problem with the edits, you could ask Conte di Cavour to explain their edits in the talk page. Elockid ^(Talk) 22:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. CrimsonSabbath (talk) 23:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

IP range of Bob's Burger sock

The previous IP range of BlueMondo131 was (conveniently) 131.156.x.x, but seems to have now established 68.164.x.x as his new parameters, as evidenced not only by your most recent revert (and thanks for staying on top of that, BTW), but also this conveniently supportive "outsider" on the list talk page and this little act of vandalism to a fairly lengthy talk page response for his one supporter, DavidP1953 (a likely a meat puppet from the overall tone of his contributions and overall lack of any edit history other than supporting this, but I've yet to prove it definitively) that I was preparing in my sandbox (which was even commented out in my user space, for the record). I don't know if this is useful, or even if so, usable information at this point, but I figured I'd better get the observation on the record somewhere in the event that it's needed and warranted. KnownAlias X 07:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

That's very useful information. I think it's still a little early to implement a rangeblock. I have a range in mind but I'd like to see if that can be widened. I'll be sure to keep an eye on the entire range. Since 131.156.x.x is from a university, BlueMondo131 is probably back home. That's probably why the IPs changed. Elockid ^(Talk) 15:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Shawn Storm

You previously commented at an archived case page related to this, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shawn Storm. -- Cirt (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Case endorsed. Elockid ^(Talk) 00:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Brazil

Thanks for warning me, but Cybershore has made the discussion unbearable already. So huge are his messages that I hardly believe someone will have the patience to actually take a look and read it. Since no one will answer he will believe that that is a sign of support for him and he will add his piece of text once more (he whas been trying to do that for.. 2 years now). He didn't care before when 3 editors opposed him (and went as far to believe that 2 other editors supported him, although they didn't) and won't care now. I added myself a message there but that's all I'm going to do. But thank you for being kind on coming to me to tell about the discussion that was reopened. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't weep Lecen and please, No lame excuses ok

My points related why to edit the "Early Republic" section in the article "Brazil" are summarized there in 3 parts, clearly separate. Just 3 points ;) Cybershore (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Enough is enough. I can't deal with his ironies ("dear monarchist", etc...) and insulting behavior ("Don't weep Lecen and please, No lame excuses ok"). Don't know why we're still losing our time with him. Good luck there. --Lecen (talk) 00:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Well Lecen, if you can not deal with irony and sarcasm, then don't be the 1st to use them. That's simple, because this is a two-way game. So dear impatient fellow, if you don't want to treat well at all people, not only those people who you believe are "above" of you or from those who you need a favour, next time keep your roughness to yourself.

Now, back to the focal points of debate, that what it's about. Cybershore (talk) 01:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

@Cybershore: what Lecen says about big walls of text is true, well from what seen in the web. Try to keep the text to a minimum.

And guys, let's try to be friendly here, okay? Elockid ^(Talk) 15:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but if you taken the trouble to read all, point to point, you will see that there is no word thrown out.

Of course, if the person has been unwilling to really join the discussion, will not have "patience" or tolerance to read and, if she/he think it's the case, counterargument point to point the other side, mainly if she/he thinks don't need do that 'cause imagine that "owns the space", having strong patron, so long being accustomed to depart collaboration of anyone who doesn't fit into his/her world view, editing disruptively, keeping unpunished.

Debate takes work my friends, if the person doesn't really want all that work, simply don't start it or stay alway from it. It's better than pretending that it cares.

Sad but no surprise that to this point is still given more importance to form than the content and denunciations.

Anyway, regarding future edits, you can rest assured, I'll keep holding it a minimum size, as usual, but without spuriousness or historical inconsistency...

In relation to be friendly, well ... by no means I condescend with arrogance, impoliteness and double standards. If the person treats me well, Okay She/He will be treated as well. If not, don't expect me to turn the other cheek, as well as it will useless to this person as discussant keep an loller attitude while proceed dissimulating, playing the victim role or/and due the lack of maturity and arguments try to hide behind of forms or the skirt bar of someone else. It will not work. Cybershore (talk) 03:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, the golden rule. But really, can't you guys just try to relax? Elockid ^(Talk) 14:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

"Since no one will answer he will believe that that is a sign of support for him and he will add his piece of text once more (he whas been trying to do that for.. 2 years now)." I told you so. This is why this article will never become featured. But let it be. It's not worth the trouble. --Lecen (talk) 11:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Arguments with consistent proofs and detailed references in english, not spuriousness loaded with weeping no argumentative, that what it's about the current edition of that section, dear fellow! Cybershore (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Banned User Nangparbat

• 86.179.152.239 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser). This IP address appears to be a sock of banned user Nangparbat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) . Please consider Blocking him and semiprotecting some of the pages he has vandalized.--Wikireader41 (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Or you know he could be another editor. The various sources aren't actually that clear about the guy being Pakistani, and its perfectly possible that he's just some other British Pakistani with BT as their ISP - especially as practically all the pages that were protected due to Nangparbat have been unprotected without issue. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

OK maybe he will create an account then and not disappear ;)--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

@Wikireader: I'll monitor the IP.

@Eraserhead: Well, not all the pages have had no issues. For example, Himalayas was unprotected but re-protected. Elockid ^(Talk) 01:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Its true that a small number of articles that were protected due to Nangparbat have had to be re-protected due to general vandalism such as Himalayas, but the vandalism on that article came from a wide variety of different IP's none of which were in the usual 86.*.*.* range. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Eraserhead1 it is true that Nangparbat has been less active lately. but dynamic IPs with Islamist pro Pakistani POV using BT from London are usually him. We have been dealing with him for years and it is only because of hard work of admins like Elockid, Nishkid64, Hersfold we were able to suppress & slow him down. I would trust their judgment without question. WP:DUCK was written for vandals like Nangparbat. Cheers.--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

and dont miss this priceless diff from him [1]. elockid can you semiprotect my userpages.--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done Let me know if you want the duration shorter or the protection removed. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

If Nangaparbat is still around then how come Terrorism in India, one of the most obvious pages he could possibly target, was able to be on pending changes without issue from him?

The Pakistani community in London is massive, and BT is a massive ISP in the UK, there will be plenty of people in the British Pakistani community who this could be. Anyone who gets accused on being some random guy on the internet and never gets any warnings is highly likely to become angry and vandalise other people's pages.

If you guys are prepared next time you see "Nangparbat" to give the IP editor a standard vandalism warning, and see where you get to I think you'll find "Nangparbat" behaves like any other IP vandal. If not then it clearly is the same guy. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that's not one of his more common article topics. His more common targets are Kashmir related articles regarding land disputes/geographical areas like Jammu and Kashmir. He does go into articles like Terrorism in India, but that's not really his primary topic area. Also, don't forget the 81.x.x.x range too. Elockid ^(Talk) 15:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Almost forgot. When does the school year usually end in England? Elockid ^(Talk) 15:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanx Elockid. indefinite protection is fine. Eraserhead1 during Nangparbat SPI a rangeblock was considered and rejected for the same reason.Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nangparbat/Archive too much collateral damage. semiprotecting articles he hits for few months was thought to be less problematic of the options available. London has prominent Pakistani community with roots in Kashmir and agree his primary interest in Kashmir related stuff. Though his strident anti India stand would also make many India related articles his target. I work extensively on Pakistan related articles and I have never seen him make a single useful contribution there in the last few years I have been here. I usually leave a warning for IPs I suspect is him with the standard invitation to open an account if they are not Nangparbat. yet to have anybody take that invitation. but agree no easy solutions. In this case we have to depend on behavioral patterns even though it is not the textbook way of doing things I am afraid.--Wikireader41 (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Can I see some diffs of your comments asking the user to open an account? The comment on that IP's talk page is rude and unfriendly and besides it fails WP:DENY. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

that is a standard template message which wp recommends. if you look at the bottom it says that if the message is in error the recipient should consider making an account. I completely disagree that it is rude and unfriendly. banned editors are not given the same privileges that other productive editors are given per WP:BAN. I am 100 % convincd it was nangparbat and I duly notified any admin of this. case closed. This is exactly what I will do next time too. Thanx and have a good day.--Wikireader41 (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

What I object to is not the templated message - as they are a good way of getting the message across quickly, but the comment you added to the bottom. If it is Nangparbat then you are breaking WP:DENY and if it isn't then its rude as its accusing the IP editor of being a banned editor. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

And if I accused you wrongly of being nangparbat "rudely" what would you do?? it is an established fact that he knows how to edit wp. wouldnt he come to my talk page and ask for an explanation ?? would he not complain to someone else about the message ?? from past experience WP:DENY does not work with Nangparbat. In any case that is not a WP:NOTLAW. I would ask you to read WP:AGF and leave dealing with Nangparbat to editors and admins experienced in dealing with him. when you question how both an experienced admin Elockid and myself deal with him I am afraid you are NOT assuming good faith with editors who have far, far more experience dealing with Nangparbat.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The fundamental reason I've bought this up is that its inevitable that given the wide range of behaviours required to be Nangparbat you are going to get false positives. When you look at the cases back in 2009 which I have looked at in detail (without having to deal with any of the shit) probably 90% of the time it was actually the right guy. The issue is that the number of false positives is likely to stay constant so if there were 6 false positives in 2009, there will be 6 false positives in 2011.

Back in 2009 the approach that was taken was clearly a good one, however if the guy is now only vandalising one page a month it seems far more sensible now to treat him like any other vandal as your false positive rate is going to be much, much higher in comparison. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

shutter shades

Dear member

i was justing why i could not add information to this page. thanks

Sorry, but blocked sockpuppeteers are not allowed to edit while they are still sanctioned. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked sockpuppet Mr.John.66 / (not unblocked) Event.Horizon.000 is engaging in vandalism by erasing or adding POV material while logged in and logged out.

Blocked sockpuppet Mr.John.66 / (not unblocked) Event.Horizon.000 is engaging in vandalism by erasing or adding POV material while logged in and logged out. And has been doing so under many constantly changing I.P. numbers while logged out. (For example today under I.P. numbers 46.241.172.86 / 188.115.233.180 ). This user has a history of engaging with other users in edit wars.

(Maphobbyist talk) 20:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked and handled by HelloAnnyong. Please continue to report any further developments. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Mrpontiac1

Hi, AnsarParacha (talk · contribs) looks like a sock of Mrpontiac1. Per advice from admin Spacemanspiff, i ran a few wikistalk comparisons and they seem to confirm this. This guy edits food articles to remove mentions of Pakistan from them just like mrpontiac1's socks. Other common interests include pakistan, history of pakistan and the mughal empire. From the spi archive page, i saw you handled the latest cases. What should i do? File an SPI? --Sodabottle (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Elockid, I think this qualifies for a duck block, I'd asked Sodabottle to contact you on this chap and Dewan if I'm not around, but I'm currently around with a worse-than-1990s-dialup-connection so I'll handle it if you don't get to it by then, after running a few wikistalks. Eitherways, I think he's now jumped ranges (your rangeblock expired after he started off on this account, but a /20 range isn't big enough on the big ISPs in India). Possibly related is HotWinters, they seem to be sequential accounts. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Elockid, I've handled this one; but can you check HotWinters (talk · contribs) and see if that passes the duck test? Do you think we'd need a check for sleepers? cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 19:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we need a sleeper check. Although all the CU data on Mrpontiac1 is stale, we should be able to still see if there are any edits coming from the same IPs from those accounts. Also, luckily for us, Nirvana888 kept a good log of the IPs they used at User:Nirvana888/Vandal watch. Would you rather want me to file the SPI or do you guys want to file it? Elockid ^(Talk) 12:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

If you could follow up on the SPI that would be great (since you know more about the history than I do). Also, ASHOKBINDUSARA (talk · contribs) is another likely one -- has that Chandragupta Maurya link with pontiac. I haven't had much time to look around and the recent mess caused by this, but it's safe to assume that he's now jumped and using multiple other ranges now. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 12:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Filed and watchlisted. Elockid ^(Talk) 12:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, this looks like a long cleanup mess, the last time he was here his anti-Pakistan rants were easy to identify, now there's a lot more "cleansing history" stuff which is why I think it took so long to detect. —SpacemanSpiff 13:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

He's probably catching on by now. Sigh, I guess more work for us. Anyways, I handled the remaining accounts the were found on SPI. Elockid ^(Talk) 15:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again, looks like we have a lot of socks going around on WP:India articles, another one David Fraudly was just blocked too, quite a lot more than normal over the past few months. —SpacemanSpiff

??????????????????

sir,

fyi the ip address u r talking about aren't mine.since i am blocked i havent even opened wikipedia.editing was far away.so please try and find the real editor and not me.thank u. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dangerpatel (talk • contribs)

No, those IPs are clearly you. Clearly what you are saying is not true. Let's see. How about this attempted edit made at January 7? LessHeard vanU blocked you at January 1 for 3 months. In this case, you were trying to edit while you were blocked. So your statement that "i am blocked i havent even opened wikipedia.editing was far away." is clearly false. Also, two other admins seem to be convinced that the IPs are you, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dangerpatel/Archive. That's why you were reblocked. So try again with something more convincing. Elockid ^(Talk) 00:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Return of User:FASHIONKING17

I'm contacting you since you were the one who blocked FASHIONKING17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for vandalism, edit warring and sockpuppetry, he returned as User:Josaf12345. Per WP:DUCK, you can compare FASHIONKING17's edit and Josaf12345's. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, sock blocked. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Sadly, he is sure to return, he is using rotating IP. --Muhandes (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

That's Opal Telecom for you. If worse comes to worse, I can protect any pages they're editing. Elockid ^(Talk) 16:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Shutter Shades

Shutter Shades protection may need an extension (same rotating IP I believe). Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but Shutter Shades is again having rotating IPs inserting unsourced information. Same for List of best-selling boy bands. I can't say if it is the same, but it seems too strange to be a coincidence. The Time (Bros album) also by the same IP, similar content. --Muhandes (talk) 09:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Already taken care of by USer:JamesBWatson. Cheers. --Muhandes (talk) 11:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for reverting random edits on Hungarian/Transylvanian bio pages. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar! Elockid ^(Talk) 11:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:School of Paris

Hey. I see you've reverted a sock's edits and deleted [[Category:School of Paris]]. I understand undoing the work of an abusive account, but the actual category for the School of Paris may be useful. Unless there's a specific reason for there not to be this category, other than it being created by a sockpuppet, I was think of recreating it. Any objections? freshacconci talktalk 14:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any objections. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Shall I undelete the page or would you rather recreate it? Elockid ^(Talk) 14:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I just saw the deletions in passing and thought the category would still be useful. Either way works for me--I can recreate it later today. Cheers. freshacconci talktalk 15:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh man. Just went through his contributions. I didn't realize he added so many artists to that category. With a just a quick glance I can see many that don't fit. Oh well. I'll recreate it and keep the focus narrowed to the appropriate names. freshacconci talktalk 15:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Alrighty then. Elockid ^(Talk) 15:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Your SPI case

Are you sure about Ypolignac (talk · contribs)? It doesn't seem to meet my criteria for similarities, and I'm trying to see what I missed. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Responded on the SPI page. Elockid ^(Talk) 12:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

you've got mail!

Hello, Elockid. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Versageek 12:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Re:

Hi Elockid. I will try to watch closely for such accounts. I think I'm already familiar with "their" peculiar POV style. Best, --Kober^Talk 17:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Some new KiK socks

A few karmaisking socks have shown up at Quantitative easing.

GreekPapSmear (talk · contribs), PimpLagarde (talk · contribs), TheUSisGreeceX100 (talk · contribs)

Should an SPI w/ checkuser for sleepers be filed? LK (talk) 10:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked both accounts and protected the page. An SPI w/ checkuser is a good idea. Elockid ^(Talk) 12:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Mr P

is back, filed a new SPI. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 05:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Endorsed and watching. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I need help knowing how to add politics to cities pages.

I do not know how to add the politics to the page, and would like to add that to a few cities — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.217.194.141 (talk • contribs)

Just click the edit tab on the top of the page and place the following headline == Politics == and just add the information you want below. Be sure though to have a reliable source to help out support any controversial statements or another editor may remove the information due to lack of supporting references. If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask. Elockid ^(Talk) 01:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Sock again?

Hello Elockid. I think the guy's back [2]. --Kober^Talk 17:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably. But not too sure yet. I'll keep an eye on it. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Rangeblocks

As you are an SPI clerk and have done quite a lot of these, I am requesting your !votes and comments here.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

IP final warned, continues to disrupt

Sorry to bother you, but not sure who else to go to with this.

This IP has been final warned twice: 72.37.244.76 (talk · contribs)

But he recently edit warred ([3], [4]) to include a red link into the article 1976. A block is in order I think. LK (talk) 04:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

This looks like a shared IP since there's some constructive edits in there. Doesn't look like edit warring though. Elockid ^(Talk) 22:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppeteer unblocked

I have to complaint. The account Jabbsworth is the 6 sockpuppet used by the known sockpupeteer Ratel to evade his block and to edit disruptively and warring[5][6]. I have been affected a lot of times because of this sockpuppeteer. I do not understand how he was recently unblocked just few day after he was blocked by you due the same reason: sockpuppetry to evade a block and edit disruptively. Why have not the affected users been heard? Will he be allowed to edit in the same topics and articles for he got his first blocks because of editing warring and disrputive? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 00:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Pot calling the kettle black. You yourself have a long history of sockpuppetry and disruptive editing (trying to insert the word "murder" into all pages discussing euthanasia, for instance, and editing from a religious POV). At one stage you completely destroyed the Talk page at Talk:Action T4 by defacing it. You also had some of your socks, eg PepitoPerez2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), permablocked. By "complaining" here you are perpetuating the cycle. Please study the collegial atmosphere we try to achieve at WP. It allows constructive editing. Jabbsworth (talk) 00:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Asking for help to an admin who knew the case is not canvassing. Should I fill a complaint? I think this user at least deserve a topic ban because he was not only blocked due sockpuppetry but also because of disruptive and editting warring, in the same few topics and articles. And I think the users affected should be also considered and protected. And reading the last comment I find he is again coming here to start attacking users with comments like the above one ("religious POV"), etc. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

CANVASSING is going from editor to editor, and from admin to admin, trying to achieve and outcome that favors your POV. Your edit history today clearly shows exactly that. I appeal to Elockid to take some sort of action to quell this form of disruption. Jabbsworth (talk) 01:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems he is again starting his doings so promptly. He just collpased some parts of a talk page. Is this not disruptive and warring? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

And what should I do about this> [7] where he is proposing to imposse a topic ban against me? Was he unblocked to let him start again like that?-- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

'

Good heavens! Are you joking, Claudio? We just sat out a block because of editwarring. Come on... Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

NightOftheBigWind: Are you harrasing me or wikihounding me, as you are following me to any edit I do and intervening at any discuss I intervene? you were already warned to stop that by an admin[8] -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

@Claudio: if you have a problem with an unblock, you can always appeal to the unblocking admin or request a reblocking on ANI. Elockid ^(Talk) 22:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Please remove incorrect indef. block tag from my talk page

I was unblocked by Arbcom. My talk page is here. Thanks Jabbsworth (talk) 00:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

can you believe that maldives president is david cameron and vice president is ariel sharon? did you see that on wikipedia? :))

you need to edit that part.

Tfoxworth

In reporting the return of longtime vandal User:Tfoxworth, I accidentally misspelled his name as TFoxworth. I have tried to correct the SPI. My apologies. FactStraight (talk) 03:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

No need to apologize. I'll move the page to the correct target. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Beaten to it. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixing serious problems with Stereotypes of East Asians in the Western world

This article makes the statement For brevity and readability the article will focus, define and henceforth use the term Asian[s], albeit incorrectly, to specifically and exclusively refer to East Asians. (I only just added the albeit incorrectly). This inaccurate usage of terms needs to be fixed, as it reinforces the narrow-minded (racist) notion that Asian = East Asian. I will soon begin to work on fixing this. I was wondering if you would be interested in helping.

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. Am I still too late? Elockid ^(Talk) 17:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the prompt response on the PT socking. I don't understand the motivation there... LadyofShalott 17:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Hopefully it will get better. Elockid ^(Talk) 17:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Hello Elockid, I hope you enjoy this treat as a friendly greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 03:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Seeking semiprotection for South Asia

I have used the RFPP page twice [9][10] to try to get South Asia protected given the excessive IP vandalism that barrages it. In both cases, User:Fastily (unfairly) rejected my plea. I wanted to get a second opinion on getting this page semiprotected. I do not understand how one can say that there isn't enough vandalism on the page, given that the overwhelming majority of recent edits are either vandalism or reversion of vandalism.

Here is the text I placed on the RFPP page

Semi-protect. There has been long-term rampant IP vandalism on this page. Something needs to be done about this vandalism. I made a request back on June 24th [11] to get this page semiprotected, but I was denied saying there was not enough vandalism (which is absurdly untrue). Here is a diff between June 1st and present. Pretty much every edit during this time interval was vandalism or reversion of vandalism. [12]. This heavy barrage on vandalism is not good for the health of the page. A long-term semi-protect is needed to help remedy this problem. Editors can't efficiently contribute to this article given that both childish vandals and POV-pushing vandals have historically chosen this page as a target of choice. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC) (This also been placed at User talk:Wtmitchell)

There doesn't appear to be too much vandalism occurring at once, but there does appear to be some unconstructive edits. Usually, what some admins look for are persistent and recurrent vandalism happening in a short amount of time. For example, 3+ different IPs/accounts vandalizing an article within the last 3 days. Long-term semis from what I've seen are usually done on low profile pages where socking is present. But for vandalism though, it's seldom protected. The article would be a good contender for PC if it was still allowed. Have you contacted Fastily directly explaining the situation? Elockid ^(Talk) 18:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandal User:Metalman59

There is another vandal who keeps trying to remove Afghanistan and Iran from South Asia and Afghanistan from Indian subcontinent. I approached them about their behavior on their talk page and they ignored me. They even made some uncivil/racist comments on Talk:South Asia.

Here is some of their badly formatted OR they put on South Asia [13] Here is what they did to Indian Subcontinent [14] Here are their uncivil comments on the talk page [15]

Please block this user Thegreyanomaly (talk) 23:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC) (This is also posted at User talk:Wtmitchell)

I've placed a 24 block. Technically, he's edit warring too. I'll keep an eye out. Elockid ^(Talk) 23:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Planet.Vici

I believe a sock of this user may have been missed. Is it possible to check if Snakeburst007 (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet without initiating another SPI? They're an SPA that has only voted on the AfD that that the puppeteer has been attempting to manipulate. OlYeller^Talktome 00:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

If it isn't clear why I brought this to you, you were the blocking admin of Planet.Vici. I'm guessing you knew or could figure it out but I wanted to make sure. OlYeller^Talktome 00:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Account blocked. 96.44.153.116 was autoblocked again when I first blocked Snakeburst007, so I instead gave it a week hardblock. Also blocked Planet.Vici 1 week for repeated socking. Elockid ^(Talk) 02:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Please remove "Foreclosure-gate" block

I was doing a bit of copyediting on 2010 United States foreclosure crisis when I noticed that the term "Foreclosure-gate", cited as an alternative name and bolded as a redirect, did not actually exist as a redirect, even though Foreclosuregate exists as a redirect. I couldn't create it, either, as you protected it from non-admin editing nearly a year ago.

Google suggests that both spellings are commonly in use (about 200,000 each, with about 95% overlap). Leaving Foreclosure-gate non-existent forces Wikipedia to bring up accurate but ugly links instead of the intended article. A quick review of WP:RFD#Reasons for deleting suggests there's no good reason not to have this redirect. (I assume the problem was its repeated creation as an article, although I couldn't find any AFD discussing the matter.)

Could you please unprotect this so that I can create it as a redirect for 2010 United States foreclosure crisis? Thank you for your assistance. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done. I apologize for any inconvenience this has caused. Elockid ^(Talk) 12:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)